User talk:Coredesat/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coredesat

I can't make sense of how to go about un-deleting my article as it no longer exists, I have no copy or reference to it and I don't have a user page as you have also deleted that. I can see I'll need to cast my plea for help on someone else.

It saddens me that you have afforded my request for help with the same scant regard you appear to apply to your 'own' deletion policy. Your curt reply indicates that you have not done me the courtesy of reading my request, and as I'm brand new to the wikipedia, for the sake of my confidence in it as a serious medium, I'm hopeful that you are not typical of the average administrator. Might I respectfully suggest if you are too busy to give these matters due attention, then perhaps you aren't the person for the job!

playbike 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Reconsideration

Hello Coredesat,

Like the chap below, I'm new to Wikipedia. I was moved to join the Wikipedia as a user in early January when on browsing I noticed the omission of an inclusion that I consider to be of sufficient substance to stand as an Encyclopaedia subject/article in its own right.

The term 'Playbike' is widely used in the USA to describe a certain genre of motorcycle (I live in the UK and even I'm well aware of it) and here in the UK, it is used in a wider context to summary the recreational use of the motorcycle; (a similar term used in a similar context would be the 'Hot hatch' as used to describe a particular genre of a broader style of car.) I was genuinely surprised not to see the term included already, and felt I had a duty to start the article. I'm quite taken aback that it has been deleted without even so much as a proposed deletion or a discussion first. As an American, I think you're perhaps scoring something of an own goal against your fellow countrymen, in view of it's widespread use in the off-road motorcycling fraternity in your part of the world. You were perhaps concerned about my username 'playbike', and saw it as advert, but I assure you, that was not my primary motivation in adding this article, and perhaps naively chose this name as it was the first thing that came to mind as I was adding the article 'playbike'.

I see that you're a busy man, deleting hundreds of articles, and I appreciate policing the Wikipedia must be something of a headache, but I'm convinced in this instance you have made an error, and I urge you to re-read and reconsider the inclusion of 'PlayBike'. I realise I'm new to this, and perhaps went about creating my two new articles the wrong way, as I've also been pulled up for my article 'Track Day' too, which although not deleted, has been tagged with problems.

I would very much appreciate it if you could help me a little with these two articles, as they both deserve to be represented in a qualitative manor in the Wikipedia.

Cheers, playbike 10:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Edited - I've just realised that my user page has been deleted also, (I fear my using playbike as a username might have caused this anomaly). Could you please reinstate it, and allow me to store my article there until Its future is resolved? Thank you. playbike 13:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No way man

You can take my house. You can take my dog but you cant take my crudely made pictures of Jimbo (User:Jimbo Wales/Funny pictures). Culverin? Talk 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Reconsideration

Dear Coredesat,

I am new to Wikipedia. On January 9, my very first and relatively new article, Bill Madden, was nominated for deletion for failing WP:V and WP:MUSIC. I noted in my Keep vote that I would modify the article so that it would prima facie and on its face assert the relevant points in WP:MUSIC specifically, points 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles and point 1 in the criteria for composers and lyricists, and fully substantiate as defined in WP:V. Between January 11 and January 15, I re-wrote my article to address these points. Unfortunately, on January 16, my article was deleted by you.

I acknowledge that my article as originally posted was poorly written and in "bad shape". However, I believe that it warranted at least a {{cleanup}} or {{disputed}} tag initially rather than a nomination for delete.

As a newbie, I clearly understood the invitation from Wikipedia to be bold and also understood that, although my writing may not be up to par with experienced Wikipedians, that the community would assume good faith in my writing (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).

I'm writing to ask that you please reconsider the deletion and consider my undeletion request for the following reasons:

  • My initial writing style failed to meet experienced Wikipedian standards and was misunderstood and for that I apologize; however, it has since been modified to meet the noted standards and expectations. I respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers which states that "behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules."
  • Although the consensus as to the number of delete per nom votes won, I respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Consensus, Consensus vs. supermajority wherein it states "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." Additionally, it also states that "When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. ... If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds."
  • Finally, I again respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Consensus, Reasonable consensus-building which states that "stubborn insistence on a position," with refusal to consider my additions, revisions, and viewpoints in good faith, "is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice."

For all of the above noted reasons, I kindly request that you consider my undeletion request and reinstate the most recent version of the Bill Madden article which was published on 15 January 2007.

Thank you, Windwall 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Smoothbeats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Smoothbeats. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hafree 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Edit: deletion review was posted [here].

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 4 22 January 2007 About the Signpost
Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to review my contributions and contribute to my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your feedback and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

recreation of page

Hi Coredesat,

Tremp Guide, which I transwikied to World Wikia, was recreated by its user, who seems to be new. I've left a message on his Talk, but I'd appreciate if you could again delete it (and perhaps protect from recreation?). Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. And such speedy service - I'm glad I voted to promote you

. TewfikTalk 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC) "Wait, there's more" - it seems that the user has now created Tremping Guide with the same content. I'm currently engaging in communication on both his Talk and the WP:WNBI, where I first found out about this from. TewfikTalk 17:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I may have been totally off on the second report, but the situation is under control. I guess one starts to hallucinate when on WP too long. TewfikTalk 06:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

deepthinka page???

--Deepthinka 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm hoping to get some sort of closure as to the un-notablity of a deepthinka page. I listed a long list of criterion based on your requirements, but that is no longer on the page, i believe i didnt time stamp it. i'd hope to not be ignored, i realize u may be up to your neck in deletion comments, etc; but if u take a short time out, i believe you'll find this label to be just as notable as the other mid level independents currently residing in the wikipedia community. I appreciate any attention you can give this request, and response you can provide, and I look forward to building a DeepThinka Wikipedia page in a manner consistent with the rules and regulations. Thanks! Peace.

All in the Family Resources

Not providing anything useful??? the site provides many useful facts and the information has been the source for All in the Family related research over the past 10 years. The webmaster is an All in the Family historian, writing a book on All in the Family and currently has contracts with MGM, Sony and Nick. His efforts have been used to help create specials about the show. There's 1 dvd on the homepage for sale. You're doing a great disservice. For fact, many of edits put in you reverted are not accurate. Ed

Vandalism

Thanks for response, BUT I'm looking for assistance as I'm relatively new. I have noticed two separate IP addresses being responsible for serial vandalism...one is a repeat offender from way back and is now doing it continuously despite warnings. Another just started on 17 Jan and after a warning, accelerated the vandalism, which is mostly defamatory language inserted in articles, especially Tom Clancy. Am I supposed to be issuing warnings???? or what is the process...these users are out of control HJ 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, in both cases...most instances had been reverted, but no warnings left. When you went to their user page, it looked like a graffiti artists diary with nonstop vandalism and no warnings. Due to the crude language used, thought someone on admin side should be alerted.HJ 02:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There were two of the pranksters as mentioned above (two separate IP addresses) , I only mentioned the Tom Clancy one above, but reported both. The other character (164) seems to relish coming back and does more after being blocked, not less. Regardless...seems like warnings are working, ne c'est pas? HJ 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a soft blcok that would require the offender to register as an editor? Not sure if that would deter them, but it tie the IP to a specific user and then it wouldn't be hard to contact school and inform them of what was going on and monitor computer useage. This person wouldn't hard to catch in the act or chase down with an IT savvy person on that end. HJ 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, may be OBE for now, another ADMIN just blocked "164" for a month. Regardless, I've noticed several similar patterns of pranking/vandalism between the several IPs....if this person doesn't register, then the User page warnings are likely not even being seen and certainly not heeded. This person or persons is simply tarnishing all the collective work of contributors....not all the subtle pranks are discovered and they are turning some articles into graffiti billboards. Sigh. HJ 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Suoerh2 07:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Hey. Can you help me with this? I made a report in AN/I but I didnt get any response. I'm not sure whether it is because it was too busy or whether my report was inactionable. Anyway, I remember you from PAIN so I hope you can tell me if I should take this to RfC?

About User:Wobble:

  • Reported to PAIN before [1] for things like calling me racialist and then saying "The sort of out of date racialist thinking that normal people (that's 99% of us) think only nutters believe any more." or calling me racist and then saying "There was a cite to "racial reality", a racist nazi site as far as I can see, with the reliability and accuracy one would expect from a bunch of neonazi thickos (who ever met an intelligent racist? Not me).", etc...
  • Calling me racist again [2]
  • "Your POV pushing and total lack of any understanding of science is getting boring." [3]
  • Calling me pathetic along with other accusations: [4]
  • "I think this has got nothing to do with using swear words and everything to do with you and Lukas's attempts to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia by introducing your nasty racist POV." [5]
  • He seems to call anything that he disagrees with, racist [6]

Talking about accusations, 99% of what he says is INCORRECT. For ex, he accused me (as usual) of distorting biomedical research and I asked him to provide examples [7] and he provided me with a link of an edit that WAS NOT mine. [8] Or like how he accuses me of "total lack of any understanding of science" considering I just explained and proved to him that technically white isnt a color (in physics) a couple minutes before his edit in question. Or his another accusation of me committing plagarism [9] when I clearly attributed the work to the scientist by saying "A. W. F. Edwards claimed in 2003..." but forgot to put quotes. [10] So, most of the time, he is not calling a spade a spade.

Anyway, besides those, there are also lots of other stuff that makes you roll your eyes, like calling me "Thukie Lulie" (one of above diffs) and "Thukas" (thickos?) [11], or "No, no shit. Shit is brown, though I'm sure you can concoct some cock and bull about how it smells of roses if it comes from Nordic people." [12], I think these are all incivil behaviour, for ex, I asked him to stop calling me Lukie, Thulie, etc. I also think I can find more examples of his too frequent unjustified accusations or incivil remarks or personal attacks but I'll stop here, this is already too long...Lukas19 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, some of these are recurring personal attacks and I think that requires admin attention, rather than RfC. He even admits that his behavior is wrong but blames all this on me by saying: "If you do not like people being nasty to you, then you could consider that they are only behaving towards you the same way you are behaving towards them." [13]Lukas19 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He even deletes my option in RfC. [14] This is just ridiculous. Lukas19 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Posted again. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Recurring_Personal_Attacks.2C_Admin_Attention_Requested. If you have time before you go out, can you write your opinion there? Lukas19 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thx man...Lukas19 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


I would like to point out that there is a certain amount of hypocricy here. Lukas is far from civil. He responds to me with the sarcastic comment "No shit", and so I am sarcastic back "No, no shit...." This is just tit for tat, it's a bit rich to complain about it when he is deliberatelly provoking other users. The first time I had any dealings with him he called me clueless,[15] for which he never appologised.[16] He has told me to "learn to read" several times, and has called me stupid several times.[17] He always claims that he is calling my behaviour "stupid" and not me. It's odd because above he claims I call him pathetic, but it's his behaviour I call pathetic. Something of a double standard. This user has a long history of reporting people he has content disputes with,[18] and he calls admins biased when they disagree with him.[19][20] [21] [22] he has a long history of calling good faith editors "vandals" and of calling mild rebukes "personal attacks".[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] (these just represent the first few he made when he was still User:Thulean, so from about the 7 Nov to 26 Nov, less than three weeks. Thulean incidentally refers to a racist ideology and organisation (Thule#.22Aryan_Thule.22, Thule Society). Here are a few more recent ones against me (for perfectly good edits).[43] [44] He has been warned for harrasing other editors by constantly posting vandalism and NPA warnings on their talk pages.[45] He is never prepared to cooperate or to try to compromise, and he often calls other users stupid or idiots. I have several times considered reporting his behaviour or refering his behaviour to an RfC, but personally I do not think wikilawyering is the solution. I have tried in vain to build bridges with this user, but he continues with his obstropolous and agressive attitude.[46] [47] [48] I do get angry with this guy, he is very agressive and quite nasty to other editors. My behaviour may not be perfect, but I have run out of good faith because of his constant POV pushing. Yes I think the guy is a racist, and yest I think he is a POV pusher. There is plenty of evidence to explain why I hold these oppionions. Not least his attempt to exclude Jewish people from the English people article,[49] (where he calls me stupid again) [50] or when he makes claims for scientific papers that the papers do not themselves make, this is a favourite one of his, he takes a research paper about genetics and uses it out of context to promote the concept of race, even if the paper doesn't even mention race. So yes there is plenty of evidence that this guy is a racist. He also turned up at the White people article at exactly the same time that the moronic nazis at Stormfront were trying to recruit people to come and edit this article from their point of view. Now don't get me wrong, if he did come via stormfront I really don't care, he is still entitled to edit here, but it is one of the reasons I think he has a pov to push and is a racist. Anyway a quick check of his edits proves that he is exactly what I say. I do not use the term in a pejorative way, he is entitled to his views, we all have a POV. I have been called a far leftist extremist. So what I say, I am not ashamed of my political opinions. We all have a POV, by saying what his POV is I am merely putting his edits into context. I do think that distorting scientific research to promote your own political point of view undermines the integrity of wikipedia and I do not think this editor is a good faith editor, I believe he has a specific POV to push, look at his edit history, he only ever edits about "race", and only ever from a single point of view. I have edited many and diverse articles and have always been interested in neutrality and verifiability.

  • He even deletes my option in RfC.
This is typical of the half truths that this editor uses to paint another editor in the worst possible light for his own end. The truth is that this editor made a post on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex [51] I found two problems with this, both to do with procedure. Firstly he had not made an RfC section on the relevant talk page, something that he should have done as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Instructions, so I did this [52] I also thought that his comment was not particularly neutral

Edit war on the relation of the term to the literal meaning of white prompted protection. In larger discussion, there is debate about whether (1) to describe white as literally inaccurate; (2) literally white refers only to white light as per definition in physics; (3) skin pigmentation/melanisation might be a better description; (4) the European historical context and/or Eurocentrism should be specified in the text; (5) whether color metaphors for race is an acceptable link since white might not be a color per (2)(It is not a color in physics [1]) and because of the fact that metaphor is misused in the title

I have highlighted the section I thought was not neutral. As for the comment about physics [53] I really fail to see how any discussion about the concept of white in terms of physics has any bearing on the subject of white people whatsoever. This is hardly any sort of "attack" or "vandalism", indeed none the wordings up for discussion mentioned physics, so if it's not an option in the wordings being discussed, why would it occur in the lead section for the RfC? I'm really fed up with Lukas and his little wikilawyering games. If you would like to understnd this problem, then I suggest you talk to some other editors who have had dealings with him. User:Psychohistorian, User:Sugaar, User:LSLM, User:Filll, User:KillerChihuahua, User:Gwernol, User:Guinnog, User:Skapur. Alun 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Reconsideration

Hi Coredesat,

I see that the debate over deletion of the article on Beckham's move has been locked, and I urge you to reconsider. First, the event is not of mere temporary newsworthiness. It may be an example of the enduring lure of America even at a time when our image in the world is at an all-time low. Beckham stated that it was so important to him to foster soccer in America that he made the move. Second, the article's discussion of other motivating factors adds nuance and context not found elsewhere. It clarifies the complicated financial incentive as well as the 31-year-old Beckham's attractiveness to European teams. Finally, the insight the article gives into the potentially the largest athletic contract ever signed ($55 million/year) is alone sufficient ground to justify its retention. What harm is there in keeping it when the downside is that such knowledge will no longer be so readily available?

Happy editing,

p.s. I just read the entire deletion debate, and it's pretty clear that the discussion was dominated by people who saw the article on the front page, were annoyed, and then waited for it to come off the front so the discussion could begin (as one user stated explicitly and further evidenced by the fact that prior to its move to the front page no one had voted for deletion). There was selection bias in the sample of those contributing to the discussion because only those worked up by the article thought to come back. It surprises me that an article of sufficient merit to make it to the front page would get the axe after such quick debate. I don't gree that there was "consensus" -- a more balanced discussion would take place with more time.

p.p.s., thanks for the response and apologies for not noticing it earlier (I'm a newbie as you can tell) anonymous 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm out

You might as well drop this. I have put a great deal of effort into wikipedia over the last several years. I have contributed to the best of my ability. I think I have made some good contributions. Please see Rosalind Franklin, mostly my own work. But I am fed up with being hounded by this racist person. he constantly uses wikipedia policies designed to protect people in order to hound and humiliate people, with the conivance of admins like you wh do not check thr facts properly, but automatically stigmatise the acused person. Well I've had enough of this victimisation. If wikipedia is more interested in protecting POV pushing racist scum than in protecting long standing good faith editors with a lot of very good edits under their belt, then I am out. I am very unhappy with this situation. You have not handled it in at all a neutral manner and seem to accept a one sided argument completelly without even attempting to get any other point of view. My wife and children will be delighted that I have quit. Hope you can live with the fact that you favour people who want to compromise the integrity of this project over those who are only interested in making a good and neutral encyclopaedia. If you have any concience whatsoever I suggest you take a look through Lukas and Thulean's edit histories, his long history of persecuting other editors and of POV pushing and decide for yourself just who is the nasty piece of work here. This place seems to be displaying all of the symptoms of being too big, there is no community spirit any more. These processes are supposed to protect people, not persecute them. Nice job mate. Alun 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User Lukas , also Thulean.

This user has been all the time using Wiki in a manipulative way to push his ideology and hound other good-faith users. He is a Neo-Nazi and attention, Neo-Nazi is not an insult, it is the objective description of an ideology. It is a shame that he constantly gets away with it. Veritas et Severitas 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your response

Wiki etiquette is fine, but admins should start getting worried about some ideologies in some pages. They do more damage to Wiki than any etiquette. Freedom of expression? Of course, but calling a Neo-Nazi what he is is just the objective definition of an ideology. Neo-Nazis are very active in the white people's article and others and they seem to be getting away with it too often. They often offend other users not with their personal comments, they are cunning enough, but with their continuous ofensive comments about race that offend millions of people. Veritas et Severitas 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

K37

Hey, why did you ban K37? He's not a particularly fantastic editor, but he's made productive edits, welcomed new users, reverted vandalism, and even started his own article. Your notice said something about an arbcom decision, but arbcom specifically decided that ED editors who didn't cause trouble on WP were allowed to edit here. As far as I know (and I'm friendly with that editor), he's never so much as been in an edit war. Why do you think Wikipedia would be better off without his edits? Milto LOL pia 06:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't remember seeing any links to ED on his userpage. I know you're under no obligation to answer to me, but just as a favor, could you explain to me how? He's a friend of mine, and it would be a bummer not to see him around here anymore - that's why I ask. Was he using tinyurl or something? He's never been real public about being an ED sysop, until he put it on his userpage recently. Anyway, if the problem is the link to ED, maybe simply deleting the link and a temp block, with a warning not to do it again, would solve the problem equally? Then WP could still benefit from his edits, which are generally unimpressive but helpful. Milto LOL pia 09:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • note: by "generally unimpressive" I mean not particularly remarkable, not bad. Milto LOL pia 10:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • His user subpages weren't deleted actually, and I'm not seeing any ED links. Milto LOL pia 10:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also curious to know where the trolling or links to ED happened. Which deleted page(s) are we talking about? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I am going ahead and unblocking K37 per the discussion on ANI. His userpages look clean and ED links are blacklisted anyway, so if any links were there, it must have been added a long time ago and simply wasn't removed. Cowman109Talk 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This is in reaction to K37's unblock request, which I'm inclined to grant, because it is not immediately apparent what objectionable edits, if any, this user has made. Even if they did link to E.D. from a user subpage, I see no way how this would be grounds for an immediate indefinite block under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_ED (as you appear to suggest here), or under any policy or guideline. Would you like to comment on this? Thanks, Sandstein 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Potter Puppet Pals. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JNighthawk 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bill Madden. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Windwall ww 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

why not redirect Traditional marriage to

traditional marriage movement ? that thing on the top of the Marriage article sure seems unnecessary and adds clutter. i thought they were gonna yank the article and protect it from re-creation. r b-j 02:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor Adminship

You called me a POV pusher and gave this example [54]. How come is this POV pushing? Also, note that, I copy & pasted this part from Genetic views on race so most of what was written in that edit WAS WRITTEN BY WOBBLE/ALUN. And the Race article already did have many counter arguments to my edition, including a whole section.
I also find it hugely unfair that you apologized from Wobble and gave me a "final warning" AFTER Wobble has called me "moron" [55], "pest, whiner, etc..." [56], "racist scum, etc..." [57]. Even if you have felt sorry about him leaving, you shouldnt have encouraged his incivil behaviour/personal attacks, you should have encouraged him to stay AND be civil AND not make any personal attacks. But you have failed [58].
And why did you do this? Because of "...he does have a history of persistent POV pushing on the White people article (as pointed out by various users on that article's talk page)"? Which other users? LSLM? The one that was balocked three times because of things ranging from personal attacks to vandalism to violation or 3RR rule? Actually he was blocked once by you as well.
I also dont believe the claim that you went over my edit history twice because you said "...as detailed in your rejections of various compromises on the Mediation Cabal case..." because this never happened! Lukas19 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Reality shift:

You recently protected[59] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 07:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Action Man page

What are you talking about? This page provides extensive information on the toy line... it is not to promote a current product. If you feel elements are promotional, please use the discussion page to outline your concerns, so that we might address them. Hholland 14:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 5 29 January 2007 About the Signpost
Foundation names advisory board, new hires Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Listen, I'm sorry for the hastle I caused you. I've probably been under a great deal more wikistress than I realised. I was out of order as well. Sorry for my little outburst. I'm still leaving editing for a while, to get my head together for a bit. Thanks for the nice note on my talk page. Alun 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Help

I see you have reverted the vandalism to my page, thank you. But I have been under attack by this guy all day and its kind of scaring me. I know that Lawl Vandal, Megalomanick, and Woot Hoot the Owl are all the same user and their only edits have been to harrass me mercilessly with untrue statements about my sexuality. Please, is there any way to block them from making more sockpuppets or find out who it is? Darthgriz98 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kamope's Valentines greetings

Hey, I noticed you reverted Kamope's edit to provide a lovely gift to Chacor because, technically speaking, it's not February 14 yet. I got my gift from Kamope on 27 January, but still felt it was given in good spirit so didn't remove it. Having worked with Kamope a few times, let me reassure you that, so far, his/her edits have been 100% good faith and, as such, perhaps you could allow him/her to add his/her greetings as he/she sees fit! All the best... The Rambling Man 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate you didn't warn Kamope. If you check out User:Kamope I think you'll see why I think this editor works 100% good faith. I have to say I thought that getting such a greeting two-and-a-half weeks early was a shade strange, but it was all positive (and I don't get Valentine's cards from anyone but the person that counts!) so I (and probably a few other editors) didn't stress it. Anyway, enough said, good speaking with you, all the best The Rambling Man 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Could you look at this from ANI? It was archived with no comment or admin action, and has now been sitting on ANI, reposted, without any comment from admins. It seems a clear policy violation to me. I am not involved in the dispute, but do think it deserves attention. Thanks. Jeffpw 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

You removed my article 'playbike' last week, and I've been in discussion with an experienced user on 'WikiProject Motorcycling', who has given me some guidance on the matter. He suggested putting a suitably edited version of the article on the 'Types of motorcycle' page, and I think this sounds like a viable compromise. In the meantime, I mentioned earlier, that I had no copy of my original article, and would be most grateful if you could please re-instate my user page and place a copy of my original article on it, in order that I can make a copy, and use it as a template for the new insertion (minus any contentious bits of course). Thank you. playbike 13:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Donnie Davies

Sorry I didn't notify you that I posted the article on DRV, but I hadn't realized you were the admin who deleted the article. Thank you for your input and suggestions. Just to clarify (this is my first going through this process), were you suggesting that the article remain on the DRV for 4 more days before being brought up again on Afd or should I go ahead and post it there while others review it for 5 days? --SquatGoblin 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Valid G8 for the Deletion of Talk:7chan

Please elaborate on the logic behind removing a discussion page. Brain fork 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand now, however, I request that 7chan be merged with 4chan on the grounds that the former is descended of the latter and is thusly a part of it's history. Brain fork 06:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem

Is there a problem with my previous request, as you appear so far to be ignoring it? I'd appreciate a response. playbike 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. playbike 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Help maintaining unprotection for Barack Obama

Regarding this request, I realize my approach was awkward, and I would appreciate your advice on how to alert the Admin community more gracefully. This is a widely watchlisted article on a prominent political figure that Admins have been quick to semi-protect, sometimes, I feel, without allowing scope for the editors to deal with the problem or for the problem to resolve by itself. The last time the article was unprotected, it remained open for only two days, which is too short a time to really know if the vandalism would level off or not. I appreciate that there are different views (perhaps even among Admins) on the justifications for sprot, and when, where and for how long it should be applied, but I also think that it is fair to consider the views of the editorial community supporting the article. In this case, there is one editor favoring permanent sprot, others who are willing to see it toggled on and off, and people like me who would prefer that its use be limited to short periods and only when absolutely necessary after some sustained evidence that people-based approaches for managing the vandalism are not working. Periodic instances (or even seemingly coordinated waves) of vulgar or insulting edits that are speedily reverted by a dedicated community of recent change patrolers should not trigger a broadbrush IP/new user blocking sprot response by well-intentioned Admins, in my view. Sorry to go on at such length, but I would value your input on alternative strategies to alert Admins to look further before triggering sprot for this article. Thanks. --HailFire 11:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in on your talk, Core, but I'd rather keep the discussion centralized :) I believe that only your view is consistent with Wikipedia's semi-protection policy. Protections aren't only done through RFPP though, so a message there probably wouldn't do much. Semi-protection isn't supposed to be anything long or drawn out (except in some extraordinary circumstances), it's supposed to very much be a temporary measure. What happens is that admins set protection to deal with vandalism per a request or simply through browsing, but then forget to come back to unprotect. We just got the ability to set expiration times on protections, so that should help quite a bit in that department. Basically, there's really no mechanism (and I'm not sure there's any real need) to notify admins not to protect an article. If it gets protected to deal with vandalism, it can be unprotected very quickly through a request on the talk page or on WP:RFPP if no other admins see it first. —bbatsell ¿? 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Assertion for Commons POTY voting

I assert that I have just voted for Picture of the Year on Wikimedia Commons under my account there, Coredesat. --Coredesat 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Real Social Dynamics

Hi, as you are the closing Admin at the Deletion Review I thought I'd bring this point up with you. Although the result was to restore the article this hasn't happened, instead what is at Real Social Dynamics is a page created by a brand new user and an IP address. This page is not at all like what was there before, and isn't properly sourced etc... Could you please move the current page there to my userspace (because I feel it might have one or two bits that could be salvaged if properly sourced) and then replace it with the old page. Thanks. Mathmo Talk 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding this a bit difficult to follow. There was an AfD, which was closed as delete. After the AfD, someone contacted the closing admin with new evidence, and he unilaterally decided that, if those involved at the AfD had seen it, it would have changed their minds. He therefore went back to the closed AfD, edited it to say that he'd changed his mind, and undeleted the page. So far so out-of-process and unacceptable. But then I made him take it to WP:DRV for discussion — and after no real discussion, you close it early and undelete the article again. What exactly is going on? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

re Duncan B. Blewett

Hello, I started the article on Dr. Blewett which you deleted. I was wondering if you would consider undeleting it so I could make an effort to demonstrate the notability of this person. He worked with the likes of Humphrey Osmond and Aldous Huxley and his work is, I believe, quite notable and too little known. ThanksCanticle 09:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC) . Thank you for the quick reply. I didn't want to simply recreate the page without checking with you. I am a relatively new wikipedian and I am trying to learn the proper protocols. Canticle 10:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hutman Artcars

Discussion of this page is flawed-reconsider.

1. Two of the few discussants are artcar artists who have a long standing feud going with me which has lasted several years now. Note the tone in their use of language and admission by one of them plymouth on lebo user talk page. These two have objected for their own benefit. One observation is also that there is a coincidence of the date the article went up and was criticized and the entry of the critic/editor improcat to the forums. Both of these two are friends. Another of the critic editors is also a recent arival. I note in the wikipedia guidelines that this is a reason for concern.

2. Two of the critic editors noted that the article had met standards- lebo noted that he thought that the page had progressed beyond the major complaints and another stated that the subject is probably notable - a second of the major complaints.

3. The discussion also demonstrated adequately on the delete discussion as well as the page talk that critics did not follow up and reconsider properly after new edits. This reflects a closed minded approach indicating that critique was not in good faith. They complained about references which had infact been included as requested.

4. The critics were overwealmed with the lack of good faith generated because this to them represented a violation in their own opinion whereas self written articles are infact legal they are simply "strongly discouraged".

5. Essentially the self written page was legal. If that is the case specific problems need to be outlined so that they can be corrected. The last edit was severe but by the request of the critics-it did have readability problems but that is not what the critics addressed following the last edit. They continued to address concerns not present in that edit because it had been essentially stripped down to bare facts.

6. Another indication of the agressive bad faith was that one of the two artcar artist critics improcat immediately went out of his way to remove images linked to the page after the page had been deleted. I know that they stay for a few days but that will generate a discussion which is not necessary and most people would not have taken it upon themselves to act so agressivly. I was thinking of moving them into the commons area anyway or offering the to another editor to use.

7.Documentary- I used the term documentary to distinguish between trivial and non trivial sources. This was objected to. Documentaries unlike ordinary media citations- news stories involve considerably more research. For example- for each of the sources I term documentary in nature the editors/authors did not take my word for it- they interviewed local residents, my family, came out with film crews and documented things and looked into other sources.

8.As far as finding sources goes. Yes...some are not on the web. That is why print libraries still exist. Monster Nation does not have a web footprint. Therefore rather than stop there the critic should go to the producers and the television station for information. To discount sources without taking proper steps to locate them may be an indication of bad faith. (I have the video of the extensive interview footage from Monster Nation). One expects critics to simply do their homework.

Conclusion-

This discussion was extremely long and philosophical and complex. I am a new member so I had to gradually learn formating but I did work hard on keeping things orderly. I also worked hard to make very prompt and complete repairs when specified. Addressing critics was also a priority. I tried to address each concern each day with a comment and or a specific change to the page. I thank you for your patience.

I believe that this article is for the good of Wikipedia. I believe it will be useful for those researching specific artcar artists of note and for preserving basic information. Than can be no difference in an article due to authorship if the facts stated are sourced and the sources can be verified.

I will gladly fix any problem if it is specifically outlined and a solution is provided. I am open to any oter editor making those changes in this short article. The fact remains that self written articles are legal at this time, that I have been considered sufficiently notable and that problems have been corrected extremely promptly where solutions have been provided that can be implemented.Cbladey 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Overclock DRV

I don't want to overturn you, but the DRV from yesterday was closed clearly out of process. "COI" and "no new info" are no reasons to close speedily unless there was already a DRV on the same AfD closure. The AfD closure was riddled with sockpuppets, so a second look is warranted, and if only to back up the closer. ~ trialsanderrors 21:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Cbladey

We all know that there are many types of concensus. It is possilble that those commenting are acting in bad faith - this can be proven That the concensus was made up of those who did not fully consider the case- that is they made comments that indicate that they have not considered available facts and changes but are just spouting off.

If you cite consensus alone you are not doing a fair job.

You need to find flaws in the page that can be corrected (since it is a legal page) or hold your peace.

The process in your hands has become simple thuggery in that you have not examined the case thoroughly. Not that many editors took an interest in the first place.

So one hires enough thugs and one can stop anything on wikipedia. Let the french revolution and the spanish inquisition role. Consensus is meaningless without a complete and meaningful argument. Cbladey 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hutman Artcars. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Cbladey 04:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By no means was that a speedy delete. There was nothing speedy about it. Wryspy 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If your consensus is corrupt then your decision is ill informed. It has been pointed out to you that the consensus was both mixed and hostile and not in good faith. You should have been able to read this in the discussion as pre-requsite to making your decision based upon the corrupt consensus. Where is the problem with the page. If you cant find a repairable problem then the problem or concern or reason to delete is in pythonesque terms "a dead parrot". Just doing your job will get you no where-or should not get you anwhere. The number of those commenting was small, the author is fully cooperative. Those commenting revealted themselves as either with a personal axe to grind or did not care to read the discussion and follow up on things like sources. Sorry! Check the guidelines- the character of the discusants is meaningful.Cbladey 04:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Read Cbladey's remark right above mine. I was disagreeing with "or speedy-deleted it". Logically, a reply like that might go on Cbladey's page, but considering how that individual bounces around where he/she/it posts replies, I figured I'd post my remark right under the comment it was about, just as a show of support for you in case anybody else came looking at your activities during the course of the deletion review. Wryspy 23:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #9

The February issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

NCIS episodes

I have discovered that List of NCIS episodes links to articles about every single episode (there are many). None establish notability, none have references, all contain (at most) plot summary and quotes (plus a sprinkling of original research-type observations). I tagged a few of them before I thought there must be a better way to go about getting these AfD posted and merged or whatever. I'm not really sure. As you have been a pundit in similar areas of concern in the past I am hoping you might want to take a look at the assemblage and handle it somehow. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Traditional marriage redirect (again)

Sorry to be a bother, but may I ask for your assistance again on this protected redirect decision? Thanks! Sdsds 19:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 6 5 February 2007 About the Signpost
Foundation organizational changes enacted Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for extending the semi-prot on my userpage. Appreciate it :) - Alison✍ 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to concerns

To respond to your concerns about me, let me note that I was an admin for two and a half years and never did the things you think I would do. Everyking 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Windizupdate

Why did you remove this article without a vote? It's the only well known alternative to windows update in a browser... 194.81.80.52 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you closed this in error

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia (second nomination), where you said:

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a supermajority was in favor of the proposal. Many of those opposed indicated it was not a really big issue for them. One of the opposing votes indicated that it was important to ensure the outcome is the same as the Philippine article, which closed as delete. The later votes were by in large all delete/merge, indicating to me that a concensus had been arrived at through the discussion. Please reconsider your decision. My understanding of the concensus policy is that these things indicates concensus was achieved for delete/merge.

82.6% of votes were in favor of deleting/merging

  1. Delete Jerry lavoie 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Delete Apostrophe 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Merge Flakeloaf 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Merge Tuvok 08:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Delete Otto4711 18:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Delete Hobbeslover 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Delete Shirahadasha 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Weak delete SYSS Mouse 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Delete Agent 86 01:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Merge/Delete Howard the Duck 08:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Delete/Merge Moreschi 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Merge/Delete Folantin 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Delete Sefringle 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Merge/Delete Tito Pao 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Delete/Merge Vsion 06:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Delete が... 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Delete/Merge MrDolomite | Talk 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Delete Kevin Ray 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Weak keep Night Gyr 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This vote was actually merge then delete but he put weak keep in bold. I asked him to correct the discrepancy and he said the bold part was not important. Jerry lavoie 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

17.4% of the votes were for keeping

  1. Keep Eluchil404 09:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Keep Shrumster 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep Talk 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep Christopher Sundita 08:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep Siroxo 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak keep T. Anthony 12:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jerry lavoie 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought deletion review was a process to review a decision to delete an article. If it is for either type of review, then my most-recent change at the top of the AfD is probably inappropriate, as might be my putting the above comments on the afd talk page. If this is the case, would you please fix it for me? I meant no harm. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of United States Presidential trivia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jerry lavoie 03:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

If it's allowed under US law, how can Wikipedia be sued? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 07:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Block

What the frick? This discussion is the first one I've had on the subject and you block me from editing my user page for a frickin week. What the hell? Warnings are wonderful things. I'm not staging a rebellion. I'm not doing it to spite you. I think I should be allowed to engage in a diologue with persons in disagreement with my actions before punitive measures are taken. Am trying very hard to be civil right now and am finding it tough. Of all times you guys pick two o'clock in the morning to start this. I would think it common courtesy to wait until a more reasonable timeframe to bring this up, but apparently I'm mistaken. If I can't breath humanity into my page because of lawsuit paranoia then Wikipedia doesn't deserve my respect. I read a story once about a surgeon who refused to operate on a person because he was afraid of getting sued and that person died. Does Wikipedia really want to put itself into a category with those people. I am absolutely furious. F*** this, I'm going to bed. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 07:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not agreeing to keeping the pictures removed would be like refusing to open the cash drawer when a robber has pointed a gun at your head. Do you want to give him the money? No. But do you have an f-ing choice? No. I'll be civil, but don't expect me to ever use kind words when talking about this issue. I disagree with this rule on Wikipedia more than any other. Not that it matters. Oh, and I think I know why I kept putting the pics back on. No, it was not to spite you. You would remove them and I would assume it was vandalism and put it back on. I knew about fair use being a problem on Commons but not userpages. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, could you help me find some free images to replace the non-free ones that were removed? I'd like to find some. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Will do. I'm glad we cleared all this up. "I don't like violence, Tom. I'm a businessman. Blood is a big expense." Virgil Sollozzo, from the Godfather -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection requested for redirect per discussion at WP:DRV

Would you please protect the redirect at United States Presidential trivia? Thanks, Jerry lavoie 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs

How do you figure? Seriously? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

At DRV now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coredesat/Archive_6&oldid=1142942165"